Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Parshuram Dongre, was arrested in connection with a criminal case. The investigating officer sought police custody remand (PCR) before the Magistrate, which was refused. The State filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, who allowed the revision and granted PCR for 5 days. The applicant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court noted that the revisional court granted PCR without producing the applicant before it, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 167 CrPC. The court also observed that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of the Magistrate without finding the Magistrate's order to be perverse or illegal. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the revisional court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order refusing PCR. The court emphasized that the accused must be produced before the court granting remand and that revisional courts should not lightly interfere with discretionary orders of Magistrates.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Police Custody Remand - Section 167 CrPC - Revisional Court's Power - The revisional court granted police custody remand without producing the accused, violating the mandate of Section 167 CrPC. Held that the accused must be produced before the court granting remand, and the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view without finding the Magistrate's order perverse. (Paras 2-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - The revisional court can interfere only if the Magistrate's order is perverse or illegal. Held that the Magistrate's order refusing remand was not shown to be perverse, and the revisional court erred in substituting its own view. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court could grant police custody remand without producing the accused before it, and whether the Magistrate's order refusing remand was perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 16/8/2017, and restored the order of the Magistrate refusing police custody remand.
Law Points
- Police custody remand
- Section 167 CrPC
- production of accused
- revisional jurisdiction
- non-application of mind by Magistrate
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 238
Criminal Revision Application No. 126 of 2017
Shri S. G. Karmarkar for applicant, Shri T. A. Mirza and Shri Indranil Damle for non-applicant State
Parshuram S/o Bajirao Dongre
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against order granting police custody remand
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought setting aside of revisional court's order granting police custody remand
Filing Reason
Revisional court granted police custody remand without producing the applicant and exceeded its jurisdiction
Previous Decisions
Magistrate refused police custody remand; Additional Sessions Judge allowed State's revision and granted 5 days PCR
Issues
Whether the revisional court could grant police custody remand without producing the accused before it?
Whether the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of the Magistrate?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction and substituted its view without finding the Magistrate's order perverse, and that the accused was not produced before the revisional court as required by Section 167 CrPC.
State argued that the Magistrate failed to consider the grounds for PCR and that the revisional court correctly interfered because the Magistrate's order was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court cannot grant police custody remand without producing the accused before it, as mandated by Section 167 CrPC. The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its view for that of the Magistrate without finding the Magistrate's order to be perverse or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The present revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16/8/2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Revision No.29/2017.
He also submitted that the applicant was not produced before the learned revisional Court while granting P.C.R. and therefore there is a breach of the mandate of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Procedural History
The applicant was arrested. The investigating officer sought police custody remand before the Magistrate, which was refused on 31/7/2017. The State filed Criminal Revision No.29/2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, who allowed the revision and granted 5 days PCR on 16/8/2017. The applicant then filed the present revision before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 167
